Dr. George Estabrooks, professor of psychology at Colgate University and author of the book “Hypnotism”, made the following two statements in a paper called “The Future of Hypnosis”.
“It would be well to sound a word of caution against certain attitudes which have become prevalent and which can be well illustrated in the field of medicine. In this respect, direct suggestion is under the ban. For example, a dictum, ‘Never remove the symptom unless the cause is understood,’ is much emphasized. Its validity is greatly open to question, since much of medical practice is direct symptom removal, as only a little thought makes apparent.
“Another dictum generally followed is that the unconscious background of symptom-complexes must necessarily be made conscious to effect a cure. Reasonable and thoughtful consideration of the extensive role of the unconscious in daily living and functioning renders this dictum much less creditable.”
I should like to discuss both of these statements in some detail as they invariably arise in the mind of the individual seeking help through hypnosis.
The first thought that comes to mind is that all the religious healings cited in the Bible involve direct symptom removal. The cures that are effected by religious devotees traveling to sacred shrines are also in the realm of direct symptom removal. I have yet to hear a criticism of this type of treatment directed at religious leaders or condemnation of the religious shrines. These cures are accepted as evidence of the power of faith or attributed to the super-natural. In these cases, nothing is ever done to make the person cured understand the nature of the unconscious mechanisms which contributed to his problem.
Religious healing cannot be dismissed by merely saying, “It isn’t scientific.” A methodology is only scientific when it works. It is of no value if it doesn’t help the individual seeking help. We must face the fact that not all people can be helped by the same psychological treatment. We can readily see this in the following extreme example: An aborigine suffering from a psychological problem certainly wouldn’t be a candidate for psychoanalysis as we know it. He could, no doubt, be helped much more readily by a witch doctor. It also stands to reason that the sophisticated Westerner would not be influenced by the incantations of a tribal medicine man.
Going further, we find there are many schools of psychotherapy and many approaches to solving man’s emotional problems. The cure rate for all of them, however, is approximately the same. I think we must accept the fact that there is no one sound, logical, scientific approach. I believe that so long as the end result is achieved, the methodology was scientific for that individual’s needs. The goal of all therapies is to help the patient free himself from whatever emotional problems beset him.
This approach, to some readers, may seem an oversimplification of a very complex problem, but I think it’s time that we had a simple, workable formula devoid of technical jargon. Too often, complex technical terms and theories have been glibly used to explain away failures. I believe we need more and more emphasis on measures to make the patient feel better rather than spending most of the time trying to find out why he doesn’t feel well. This, of course, is symptom removal again.
I should like to point out an interesting fact pertaining to Biblical healers. So long as the fame of the healer preceded his arrival in any country, he was able to heal the sick. However, where his fame as a healer was either unknown or discredited, he found no faith and subsequently no cure. The earliest reference to hypnosis is in the Bible, Genesis ii, 21. “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept …”
